Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to the kids if they get a divorce? I’m in a UK based group and they seem to think the kids will go back to the UK. That if Charles is King when it happens then he will have guardianship of the kids and the US will send them over bc Harry is on a diplomat visa. I tried saying that was crazy and they will likely get 50/50 joint physical custody if they file in CA but I was completely bashed.

Harry will never leave her, he’s too weak and wimpy and wouldn’t know what to do. She may leave him but if she did I assume he would just hang around CA to have joint custody of the kids.

Yeah this is the right answer. If she moves on, she can portray him as a racist, insensitive drug user who didn’t support her even when she was suicidal. But the kids aren’t leaving CA. He has nowhere to go. Even if she finds a wealthier third husband, he’s got nowhere to go. He’ll just hang around.

I doubt he'll hang around. Like anything with H&M, it's ultimately all about the money. If Harry stays he will be facing some significant tax challenges:

"... top LA tax lawyer David Holtz warned that Prince Harry could face a huge tax bill ...“You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.” said Holtz.

US tax laws indicate that any foreign national who stays in the US for 183 consecutive days within a three-year period must pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.

According to another tax expert, Prince Harry’s tax bill could be enormous and would likely open up a ‘can of worms’ for the Royal Family as the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will want to know about all of his income sources.

The expert said: “That’s not just his Netflix deal, but any monies he might have received in gifts from Prince Charles and any trust funds, savings accounts or other assets he has in the UK. That means the Royal books will be open to scrutiny. The US taxman is far more zealous than his UK counterpart.”

Why does this “expert” assume the Sussexes don’t have competent tax advisors?

These are unusual tax issues. And the Sussexes don't have competent non-tax advisors, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume that this is different.

These issues are really not that unusual for high wealth individuals. Heck they aren’t even the first wealth member of a royal family to move to the US. And they don’t have competent advisers in other areas because they feel they are competent themselves. Considering many middle class Americans hire CPAs to do their taxes I can’t imagine either of these two have looked at a tax return for decades, if ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

They address this in the Oprah interview; their move to California was unplanned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to the kids if they get a divorce? I’m in a UK based group and they seem to think the kids will go back to the UK. That if Charles is King when it happens then he will have guardianship of the kids and the US will send them over bc Harry is on a diplomat visa. I tried saying that was crazy and they will likely get 50/50 joint physical custody if they file in CA but I was completely bashed.

Harry will never leave her, he’s too weak and wimpy and wouldn’t know what to do. She may leave him but if she did I assume he would just hang around CA to have joint custody of the kids.

Yeah this is the right answer. If she moves on, she can portray him as a racist, insensitive drug user who didn’t support her even when she was suicidal. But the kids aren’t leaving CA. He has nowhere to go. Even if she finds a wealthier third husband, he’s got nowhere to go. He’ll just hang around.

I doubt he'll hang around. Like anything with H&M, it's ultimately all about the money. If Harry stays he will be facing some significant tax challenges:

"... top LA tax lawyer David Holtz warned that Prince Harry could face a huge tax bill ...“You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.” said Holtz.

US tax laws indicate that any foreign national who stays in the US for 183 consecutive days within a three-year period must pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.

According to another tax expert, Prince Harry’s tax bill could be enormous and would likely open up a ‘can of worms’ for the Royal Family as the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will want to know about all of his income sources.

The expert said: “That’s not just his Netflix deal, but any monies he might have received in gifts from Prince Charles and any trust funds, savings accounts or other assets he has in the UK. That means the Royal books will be open to scrutiny. The US taxman is far more zealous than his UK counterpart.”

Why does this “expert” assume the Sussexes don’t have competent tax advisors?

These are unusual tax issues. And the Sussexes don't have competent non-tax advisors, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume that this is different.

These issues are really not that unusual for high wealth individuals. Heck they aren’t even the first wealth member of a royal family to move to the US. And they don’t have competent advisers in other areas because they feel they are competent themselves. Considering many middle class Americans hire CPAs to do their taxes I can’t imagine either of these two have looked at a tax return for decades, if ever.

You're missing the point. It's not about who does their taxes it's about what must be REPORTED. That includes money from the BRF coffers. It will be taxed as appropriate.

Haha! Talk about a turnaround in "taxation without representation" - what irony!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why does anyone think the babies were born via surrogates and IVF? I had babies at same age. Not everyone needs to go IVF route. She also had pregnancy face on Oprah interview. You may not like her but spreading things is crazy.

I cannot stand the Sussexes, but there’s no evidence to suggest that either of their children were born via surrogate. She looked pregnant both times and very clearly was postpartum in the photocall after Archie’s birth. MM swelled up and gained quite a bit of weight (as many do, no shame in that) while pregnant, and didn’t snap back after Archie either. That can’t really be faked.

+1. As an official “Meghan hater,” I agree.

+2 Utterly ridiculous. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

They address this in the Oprah interview; their move to California was unplanned.

Not really. They could have done their royal duties with the charities etc. and still bought a home in CA. Their security and pay was dropped because they totally wanted to step away. That's where they made the big mistake. Not realizing all that would stop..... speaks volumes about Harry's naivety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

Your sentence structure is strange and doesn't seem remotely related to my points, which were about how the article was meaningless, unsubstantiated vague fluff that really said nothing about the situation.

After saying 'you may be right' you then transition to a complete nonsequiter. After throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky? I don't even know what this means, who is thrown under the bus in the article? What is tacky? You use 'it' to do a lot of heavy lifting here.

Then you put in a bunch of opinions about things that have been rehashed a bazillion times on this thread to I guess change the subject?

Anyway this post is rambling nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, which is that that post really oversold what that link says (which is basically nothing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to the kids if they get a divorce? I’m in a UK based group and they seem to think the kids will go back to the UK. That if Charles is King when it happens then he will have guardianship of the kids and the US will send them over bc Harry is on a diplomat visa. I tried saying that was crazy and they will likely get 50/50 joint physical custody if they file in CA but I was completely bashed.

Harry will never leave her, he’s too weak and wimpy and wouldn’t know what to do. She may leave him but if she did I assume he would just hang around CA to have joint custody of the kids.

Yeah this is the right answer. If she moves on, she can portray him as a racist, insensitive drug user who didn’t support her even when she was suicidal. But the kids aren’t leaving CA. He has nowhere to go. Even if she finds a wealthier third husband, he’s got nowhere to go. He’ll just hang around.

I doubt he'll hang around. Like anything with H&M, it's ultimately all about the money. If Harry stays he will be facing some significant tax challenges:

"... top LA tax lawyer David Holtz warned that Prince Harry could face a huge tax bill ...“You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.” said Holtz.

US tax laws indicate that any foreign national who stays in the US for 183 consecutive days within a three-year period must pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.

According to another tax expert, Prince Harry’s tax bill could be enormous and would likely open up a ‘can of worms’ for the Royal Family as the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will want to know about all of his income sources.

The expert said: “That’s not just his Netflix deal, but any monies he might have received in gifts from Prince Charles and any trust funds, savings accounts or other assets he has in the UK. That means the Royal books will be open to scrutiny. The US taxman is far more zealous than his UK counterpart.”

Why does this “expert” assume the Sussexes don’t have competent tax advisors?

These are unusual tax issues. And the Sussexes don't have competent non-tax advisors, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume that this is different.

These issues are really not that unusual for high wealth individuals. Heck they aren’t even the first wealth member of a royal family to move to the US. And they don’t have competent advisers in other areas because they feel they are competent themselves. Considering many middle class Americans hire CPAs to do their taxes I can’t imagine either of these two have looked at a tax return for decades, if ever.

You're missing the point. It's not about who does their taxes it's about what must be REPORTED. That includes money from the BRF coffers. It will be taxed as appropriate.

Haha! Talk about a turnaround in "taxation without representation" - what irony!

What? This is why people think you guys are idiots. Meghan and Harry do not do their own taxes. Their accountant will know what the rules are and tax them accordingly. And while he will be taxed on international revenue, much of his wealth was already in hand and you don't get taxed on money you just happen to HAVE, you get taxed on money you EARN within a certain period of time. The money he HAD prior to coming here will not be taxed until he gets into a capital gains type situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

Wow. If the Queen takes her gloves off, H&M will never know what hit them.

I personally think this is a mistake. The queen is above their drama, and should still stay silent when they say stupid shit and lie. For a narcissist the worst thing is to just be ignored, and that’s what the queen should do to them.

I see your point but she has to draw the line somewhere.

Agree. Lilibet is just too personal. The Queen has other weapons at her disposal should they become necessary. If the Sussex babies really were IVF babies from surrogates it calls into question the line of succession. Cue the screeching "that's a conspiracy theory". Maybe it is, but if it is true and the Crown can prove it - tread carefully Harry and Meghan. You might keep your titles but your kids might not.

What is illegitimate about an IVF baby born via surrogate?

As a guess: the person giving birth to the baby (the surrogate) is not legally married to the father. Technically, then, it’s not a legitimate birth if Harry’s legal wife is not the person who physically gave birth to their child. I’m sure they could do DNA testing, but if the laws don’t account surrogacy, that might not matter.

I think it’s pretty clear that Meghan was pregnant though. I have no idea if IVF would present any legal issues, but I’m assuming it would not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

Wow. If the Queen takes her gloves off, H&M will never know what hit them.

I personally think this is a mistake. The queen is above their drama, and should still stay silent when they say stupid shit and lie. For a narcissist the worst thing is to just be ignored, and that’s what the queen should do to them.

I see your point but she has to draw the line somewhere.

Agree. Lilibet is just too personal. The Queen has other weapons at her disposal should they become necessary. If the Sussex babies really were IVF babies from surrogates it calls into question the line of succession. Cue the screeching "that's a conspiracy theory". Maybe it is, but if it is true and the Crown can prove it - tread carefully Harry and Meghan. You might keep your titles but your kids might not.

What is illegitimate about an IVF baby born via surrogate?

As a guess: the person giving birth to the baby (the surrogate) is not legally married to the father. Technically, then, it’s not a legitimate birth if Harry’s legal wife is not the person who physically gave birth to their child. I’m sure they could do DNA testing, but if the laws don’t account surrogacy, that might not matter.

I think it’s pretty clear that Meghan was pregnant though. I have no idea if IVF would present any legal issues, but I’m assuming it would not.

Also, I wonder if these laws and traditions explain why there was so much fuss over where Archie was born. Way back when, the births of potential heirs were officially witnessed. I’m guessing that Diana and Kate choosing the same hospital and doing the shortly-after-birth photoshoots on the hospital steps are the modern equivalent of having the birth of a potential monarch duly witnessed and quickly acknowledged in and by the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to the kids if they get a divorce? I’m in a UK based group and they seem to think the kids will go back to the UK. That if Charles is King when it happens then he will have guardianship of the kids and the US will send them over bc Harry is on a diplomat visa. I tried saying that was crazy and they will likely get 50/50 joint physical custody if they file in CA but I was completely bashed.

Harry will never leave her, he’s too weak and wimpy and wouldn’t know what to do. She may leave him but if she did I assume he would just hang around CA to have joint custody of the kids.

Yeah this is the right answer. If she moves on, she can portray him as a racist, insensitive drug user who didn’t support her even when she was suicidal. But the kids aren’t leaving CA. He has nowhere to go. Even if she finds a wealthier third husband, he’s got nowhere to go. He’ll just hang around.

I doubt he'll hang around. Like anything with H&M, it's ultimately all about the money. If Harry stays he will be facing some significant tax challenges:

"... top LA tax lawyer David Holtz warned that Prince Harry could face a huge tax bill ...“You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.” said Holtz.

US tax laws indicate that any foreign national who stays in the US for 183 consecutive days within a three-year period must pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.

According to another tax expert, Prince Harry’s tax bill could be enormous and would likely open up a ‘can of worms’ for the Royal Family as the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will want to know about all of his income sources.

The expert said: “That’s not just his Netflix deal, but any monies he might have received in gifts from Prince Charles and any trust funds, savings accounts or other assets he has in the UK. That means the Royal books will be open to scrutiny. The US taxman is far more zealous than his UK counterpart.”

Why does this “expert” assume the Sussexes don’t have competent tax advisors?

These are unusual tax issues. And the Sussexes don't have competent non-tax advisors, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume that this is different.

These issues are really not that unusual for high wealth individuals. Heck they aren’t even the first wealth member of a royal family to move to the US. And they don’t have competent advisers in other areas because they feel they are competent themselves. Considering many middle class Americans hire CPAs to do their taxes I can’t imagine either of these two have looked at a tax return for decades, if ever.

You're missing the point. It's not about who does their taxes it's about what must be REPORTED. That includes money from the BRF coffers. It will be taxed as appropriate.

Haha! Talk about a turnaround in "taxation without representation" - what irony!

What? This is why people think you guys are idiots. Meghan and Harry do not do their own taxes. Their accountant will know what the rules are and tax them accordingly. And while he will be taxed on international revenue, much of his wealth was already in hand and you don't get taxed on money you just happen to HAVE, you get taxed on money you EARN within a certain period of time. The money he HAD prior to coming here will not be taxed until he gets into a capital gains type situation.

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. This isn't about who does their taxes. The point is Harry MUST REPORT IT! Even if it doesn't generate income and even if it is in a foreign account. By law, U.S. citizens and residents must report ANY income from foreign trusts and foreign bank and securities accounts.

This is a member of the BRF who is going to have to DISCLOSE HIS FINANCES to the U.S. government.

Now that it is in bold do you understand it better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to the kids if they get a divorce? I’m in a UK based group and they seem to think the kids will go back to the UK. That if Charles is King when it happens then he will have guardianship of the kids and the US will send them over bc Harry is on a diplomat visa. I tried saying that was crazy and they will likely get 50/50 joint physical custody if they file in CA but I was completely bashed.

Harry will never leave her, he’s too weak and wimpy and wouldn’t know what to do. She may leave him but if she did I assume he would just hang around CA to have joint custody of the kids.

Yeah this is the right answer. If she moves on, she can portray him as a racist, insensitive drug user who didn’t support her even when she was suicidal. But the kids aren’t leaving CA. He has nowhere to go. Even if she finds a wealthier third husband, he’s got nowhere to go. He’ll just hang around.

I doubt he'll hang around. Like anything with H&M, it's ultimately all about the money. If Harry stays he will be facing some significant tax challenges:

"... top LA tax lawyer David Holtz warned that Prince Harry could face a huge tax bill ...“You can safely assume that someone at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking very closely at him. This is a big deal.” said Holtz.

US tax laws indicate that any foreign national who stays in the US for 183 consecutive days within a three-year period must pay US taxes on worldwide earnings.

According to another tax expert, Prince Harry’s tax bill could be enormous and would likely open up a ‘can of worms’ for the Royal Family as the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will want to know about all of his income sources.

The expert said: “That’s not just his Netflix deal, but any monies he might have received in gifts from Prince Charles and any trust funds, savings accounts or other assets he has in the UK. That means the Royal books will be open to scrutiny. The US taxman is far more zealous than his UK counterpart.”

Why does this “expert” assume the Sussexes don’t have competent tax advisors?

These are unusual tax issues. And the Sussexes don't have competent non-tax advisors, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume that this is different.

These issues are really not that unusual for high wealth individuals. Heck they aren’t even the first wealth member of a royal family to move to the US. And they don’t have competent advisers in other areas because they feel they are competent themselves. Considering many middle class Americans hire CPAs to do their taxes I can’t imagine either of these two have looked at a tax return for decades, if ever.

You're missing the point. It's not about who does their taxes it's about what must be REPORTED. That includes money from the BRF coffers. It will be taxed as appropriate.

Haha! Talk about a turnaround in "taxation without representation" - what irony!

What? This is why people think you guys are idiots. Meghan and Harry do not do their own taxes. Their accountant will know what the rules are and tax them accordingly. And while he will be taxed on international revenue, much of his wealth was already in hand and you don't get taxed on money you just happen to HAVE, you get taxed on money you EARN within a certain period of time. The money he HAD prior to coming here will not be taxed until he gets into a capital gains type situation.

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. This isn't about who does their taxes. The point is Harry MUST REPORT IT! Even if it doesn't generate income and even if it is in a foreign account. By law, U.S. citizens and residents must report ANY income from foreign trusts and foreign bank and securities accounts.

This is a member of the BRF who is going to have to DISCLOSE HIS FINANCES to the U.S. government.

Now that it is in bold do you understand it better?

What? Are you American? Have you done your taxes? You have to report INCOME yes. But I still do not understand what point you are making? Because I thought you were saying he was going to get in trouble with the government for evading taxes or messing up his taxes or something. But you seem to just be thinking its juicy that the US Gov might get to see the balance sheets of a foreign national?

But I hate to break it to you the IRS locks down interesting people's information with like, intense fortress like security. Hence DJT's taxes somehow not leaking despite every news organization in the world ready to offer big bucks. The IRS does not leak.

Perhaps though you can explain to me what YOU believe the difference is between reporting income and doing one's taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

Your sentence structure is strange and doesn't seem remotely related to my points, which were about how the article was meaningless, unsubstantiated vague fluff that really said nothing about the situation.

After saying 'you may be right' you then transition to a complete nonsequiter. After throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky? I don't even know what this means, who is thrown under the bus in the article? What is tacky? You use 'it' to do a lot of heavy lifting here.

Then you put in a bunch of opinions about things that have been rehashed a bazillion times on this thread to I guess change the subject?

Anyway this post is rambling nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, which is that that post really oversold what that link says (which is basically nothing).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

They address this in the Oprah interview; their move to California was unplanned.

Not really. They could have done their royal duties with the charities etc. and still bought a home in CA. Their security and pay was dropped because they totally wanted to step away. That's where they made the big mistake. Not realizing all that would stop..... speaks volumes about Harry's naivety.

This is LITERALLY what they address in the Oprah interview. Are you daft? Their initial request was to work "part-time" on their royal duties and set up camp elsewhere. They were denied this request, which then resulted in "Megxit."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you have it: Never Explain Never Complain policy is done:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

"The insider last night denied that, stating, ‘No video call has taken place’, adding: ‘Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the Queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.’ Ironically, Harry has spoken out against the ‘barrage of mistruths’ on social media."

'Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.'

So I finally clicked on this article from the daily Mail. It says nothing new? And it’san outlet that has a long history of proving false info. I also googled and could find no other news sources corroborating. So this is gossip and can’t be taken as fact imo. I’m not even sure it’s putting forth any actual facts

You may be right, but after throwing them under the bus it does seem tacky. They seem to want it both ways or what benefits them most.
It was very drastic leaving the family. I wonder why they didn't buy a home in CA and go back and fourth. They still could have done their duties, but have the freedom of another home far away. Once they left the queen made it clear they wouldn't be paid, minus all the other benefits. Why didn't they test the waters first?

They address this in the Oprah interview; their move to California was unplanned.

Not really. They could have done their royal duties with the charities etc. and still bought a home in CA. Their security and pay was dropped because they totally wanted to step away. That's where they made the big mistake. Not realizing all that would stop..... speaks volumes about Harry's naivety.

This is LITERALLY what they address in the Oprah interview. Are you daft? Their initial request was to work "part-time" on their royal duties and set up camp elsewhere. They were denied this request, which then resulted in "Megxit."

We watched it play out in real time. They moved to Canada and then asked to be cafeteria royals. They launched their Sussex Royal dot com site. Then the queen said No.

They could have (and should have) asked for some settling in time. But they didn't ask for a break or a remote station. They asked to be cafeteria royals. That didn't fly.